cannabisnews.com: Medical Marijuana on Agenda 





Medical Marijuana on Agenda 
Posted by CN Staff on January 19, 2006 at 06:36:55 PT
By Steve Terrell, The New Mexican 
Source: Santa Fe New Mexican 
New Mexico -- In an unforeseen move, Gov. Bill Richardson on Wednesday night said he will include a medical-marijuana bill on his agenda this legislative session . The governor’s decision surprised drug-law-reform advocates, who had been disheartened by Richardson’s statement earlier this week that there wouldn’t be enough time in an already packed 30-day session to take on the measure.
House Speaker Ben Luján , DNambé , said before the session started that he had asked Richardson not to include medical marijuana on his call, saying there wasn’t enough time. But on Wednesday night, Richardson said in a news release, “After speaking with many seriously ill New Mexicans, I have decided to include this bill on my call. This issue is too important, and there are too many New Mexicans suffering to delay this issue any further.” “We’re so thrilled and so grateful,” said Reena Szczepanski, director of the state chapter of The Drug Policy Alliance, a national advocacy group that has been pushing the proposed bill. “We’re proud to have a governor who will stand up for compassion. We know it was a hard decision,” she said. This week, the group advertised in newspapers urging readers to contact officials about the issue. An e-mail from Szczepanski to supporters this week said, “Thanks to public outcry from supporters like you, we’ve had hundreds of letters from our members sent to the governor.” The proposed bill would allow patients seriously ill with cancer, AIDS or certain other medical conditions legal access to marijuana. Patients would be recommended by their doctors to a program overseen by the state Department of Health. The department would be responsible for developing regulations for licensed producers of medical marijuana within the state and coming up with standards for safety, security and distribution. Although both Richardson and Luján said the bill might be too controversial for a short session, last year relatively little controversy surrounded the bill, which had bipartisan support. Last year, the legislation sailed through the Senate, passing 27-11 . Though it breezed through House committees, the bill died in the House after Rep. Dan Silva, D-Albuquerque , got upset with the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Cisco McSorley, D-Albuquerque , over Silva’s unrelated zoning bill. McSorley will sponsor the bill again this year, an alliance news release said. Source: Santa Fe New Mexican (NM)Author: Steve Terrell, The New Mexican Published: January 19, 2006 Copyright: 2006 The Santa Fe New MexicanContact: letters sfnewmexican.comWebsite: http://www.sfnewmexican.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:Drug Policy Alliancehttp://www.drugpolicy.org/Medical Marijuana Bill Fails http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20381.shtmlMedical Marijuana Bill Dies at Session's Endhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20380.shtmlCancer Survivor Backs Bill on Medical Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20210.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #16 posted by afterburner on January 19, 2006 at 22:14:30 PT
'Ohio might be having a MMJ bill introduced '
US OH: Medical-Marijuana Proponents Ask Senators for Hearing
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n084/a08.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by afterburner on January 19, 2006 at 21:17:36 PT
Why Is Arizona Waiting So Long...
to correct their medical cannabis initiative?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by Taylor121 on January 19, 2006 at 20:31:16 PT
potpal
I stand corrected. I got them mixed up. Thanks for the correction! :)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by FoM on January 19, 2006 at 16:57:04 PT
potpal
Maybe they should all be flashing green since we all hope so much that it will happen everywhere. I really don't mean it but it's a nice thought. Thanks.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by potpal on January 19, 2006 at 16:39:13 PT
maryland vs maine
Your description of Maine sounds more like how it is in Maryland? I added a WI blink to the map...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Taylor121 on January 19, 2006 at 13:27:34 PT
jared3602
The reason therre is a disagreement on the states that have medical marijuana legalized is how people are defining legalization. The map counts two extra states from the 11 claimed by the MPP, NORML, and the like. They included Arizona and Maine. Arizona did pass an intiative relating to medical marijuana in 1996, the problem is the intiative language contained the wording of a doctor's "prescription" rather than "recommendation" like California for instance had done. The word "prescription" has legal implications, since the only way a drug can be prescribed is through the Federal regulatory process. Marijuana hasn't been through that, so it would be illegal for a doctor to prescribe cannabis, thus the reasoning why Arizona's medical marijuana is essentially bad, and doesn't protect anyone. Maine is listed as well, but the reality is Maine does not have medical marijuana legalized, but instead allows a patient to offer a court a medical defense after they are arrested. The other 11 states protect patients from arrest from the state and local authorities.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by FoM on January 19, 2006 at 12:43:24 PT
 potpal 
You doing a good job. Now it seems that Ohio might be having a MMJ bill introduced but heck I don't know. What about Wisconsin?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by jared3602 on January 19, 2006 at 12:25:16 PT
potpal
Nice link. I counted it and it has 13 states that allow medical cannabis. I keep getting confused on this point because everyone is stating 11 states. Also it leaves New York out of the pending states. There is an innicative that has been pending for the past 3 years.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by potpal on January 19, 2006 at 11:07:27 PT
Look, see
New Mexico blink!http://www.atbeach.com/burgerlink/greenstate.swf 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by runderwo on January 19, 2006 at 10:25:27 PT
Max
But until the Raich ruling is overturned, the feds do have jurisdiction within the states and over noncommercial trade. The decision is faulty and should be revisited, but it doesn't change the sad fact that the feds are not overreaching their jurisdiction anymore, because SCOTUS handed that jurisdiction to them in the Raich decision.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Max Flowers on January 19, 2006 at 09:43:05 PT
DEA and jurisdiction
I've been reading the USC (United States Code) and a lot of related materials about taxation and the massive income tax fraud on The People lately, and have realized that there is a tactic that can be taken from that subject and used against the DEA when they do their illegal raids.The raids are illegal almost every time, and the reason is that federal outfits like DEA have ZERO jurisdiction in the several states, meaning all the 50 states not including small specific federal zones and not including D.C., of course. I believe a big part of the problem has been that people don't know about this and how to assert the fact up front when it counts, and loudly, and then in courts when it also counts later. I am starting to fully understand why DEA raids on medical cannabis dispensaries rarely include charges filed. It's because the feds KNOW that they do not have legal jurisdiction, and where they have no jurisdiction, they can't bring charges! So these slimy cheaters do what damamge and intimidation they can do up to the point where things go on the record (formal charges).A careful reading of the Constitution shows that there is absolutely no responsibility given to Congress that required the Congress to operate within the Several States. Let me repeat that. Article I Section 8 lists all the responsibilities given to Congress, and absolutely no responsibilities delegated to Congress required them to operate within the States, or gave it power that would penetrate the States. The obvious exception to the above statement is the issue that Congress uses to usurp power and encroach into the States. Let’s talk about that exception.Actually, there are two exceptions to the limits placed on Congress. The first exception gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce between the States.The Congress shall have Power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes…" Article I, Section 8, Clause 3This section, usually called the Interstate Commerce Clause, is the only section in the entire Constitution that gives Congress power over the States.The second exception gives Congress the authority to deal with specific crimes that would involve individuals. Counterfeiting, piracy and espionage are the only crimes that Congress was given authority over. These are the only issues in the entire Constitution where Congress has power over We The People.The United States (federal law) has territorial jurisdiction only in Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and in the territories and insular possessions of the United States. However, it has no territorial jurisdiction over non-federally owned areas inside the territorial jurisdiction of the States within the American Union. And this proposition of law is supported by literally hundreds of cases.Americans must realize that the federal government can only violate these clear Constitutional limitations when and if We The People voluntarily submit to its unlawful laws and mandates. We must take the responsibility to learn what we must learn and hold the federal government accountable to these limitations, and we must commit the financial resources to finish this battle, or the only option to increasing federal tyranny is revolution.So, since DEA is violating the Constitution and Due Process every time they do anything outside of the federal zone, what needs to start happening is that people---DEA victims---need to know that the first thing they must do when confronted is to loudly, hysterically, demand to see and PHOTOCOPY the warrant which the DEA says it has (most times, I bet they don't even have one, and even if they do, it's invalid and false---a HUGE federal crime) and demand to know what law they think authorizes them to even be there at all. They may say "the Commerce Clause", but despite what the recent Raich supreme court ruling appears to say, it does not give the feds pure and true jurisdiction. Medical dispensaries don't sell across state lines. The point is that from a psychological standpoint, the more that common people show the feds that they are aware of the jurisdiction issues, the less "free" and "politically comfortable" they will feel to keep doing these illegal actions."If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be... The People cannot be safe without information." -- Thomas Jefferson
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on January 19, 2006 at 08:09:02 PT:
Fallout from Rhode Island blew West
And landed right in the NM Guv'nuh's lap. It was said here that the politicians would be testing the political waters with their toes and the wind direction with their fingers regarding MMJ after Rhode Island's robust showing in their Legislature demonstrated that there's a lot of public support for MMJ; here's the proof. And when all the anti organizations could do about our victory was pout and whine, it showed also the limits of their previous power. Because...it was *parents* who voted for reform measures like this one. The same parents that the prohibs are always trying to nany-scold into doing their bidding by implying they are bad parents for even entertaining such ideas. Much more happened in the RI Lege than many people have tumbled to yet; the prohib forces have, just as have all DrugWarriors, received a stinging slap in the face, and an implied "We're tired of listening to your yammering; we'll vote the way we want to and you can just go bugger off!" A 'vote of no confidence' in drug prohibition in general has been made by the electorate...and it was done while significant looks were directed at the prohibs. Let's see if they get the message, or will the story end like the commercial of the guy switching phone networks tells his previous company that's making pathetic attempts to win him back: "Stop. You're just embarassing yourself."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on January 19, 2006 at 07:31:31 PT
Storm Crow 
I like what you said. A patchwork revolution.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Storm Crow on January 19, 2006 at 07:25:37 PT
Bit by bit...
Little by little, there is a revolution going on. Being a quilter, I like to think of it as a "patchwork revolution". A state here, then a state there, until we prevail and the "quilt patches"(the states) are all in shades of green! Way to go New Mexico!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on January 19, 2006 at 07:02:06 PT
OverwhelmSam 
Sometimes I feel like any movement foward is a big miracle to me. Little by little and step by step if we don't lose hope we will win. We will win because it's the right thing to do. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by OverwhelmSam on January 19, 2006 at 06:58:53 PT
I'm Impressed!
And generally happy that the Cannabis lobby in this state was so effective. Kudos to the Drug Policy Alliance. City by city, state by state, the anti-marijuana laws will fall, like toy soldiers.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment